“ Now realize that publicly stating your lab had a protocol failure of this magnitude and you face career death, the possible eradication of your lab and it’s connections, etc.”
From my previous comment.
It wouldn’t be the least bit surprising that these researchers wouldn’t say it happened even if they had strong evidence it did.
The downsides are obviously not good for them nor their careers in any way. God forbid they themselves could be found connected to the responsibility and would inevitably become a scapegoat.
And if they did come out and nothing happened to them - what positives would occur? “Reforming safety protocols”? All that would do is create more red tape in the future and inhibit research even more.
I think you should better evaluate the context of what a scientist in that position would face and think. You really quickly see there’s a lot of grey area, and we can’t think very highly of our typical standards of proof.
Of course, i’m not saying “absolutely it was a leak”. Simply that you’re holding the theory to such high standards of proof as to be, imho, unreasonable.
From my previous comment.
It wouldn’t be the least bit surprising that these researchers wouldn’t say it happened even if they had strong evidence it did.
The downsides are obviously not good for them nor their careers in any way. God forbid they themselves could be found connected to the responsibility and would inevitably become a scapegoat.
And if they did come out and nothing happened to them - what positives would occur? “Reforming safety protocols”? All that would do is create more red tape in the future and inhibit research even more.
I think you should better evaluate the context of what a scientist in that position would face and think. You really quickly see there’s a lot of grey area, and we can’t think very highly of our typical standards of proof.
Of course, i’m not saying “absolutely it was a leak”. Simply that you’re holding the theory to such high standards of proof as to be, imho, unreasonable.